r 

D 
H 

n. 
r 

K 

'J* 


S53E) 


UC-NRLF 


ill  ,i{;  ihih  hiiuri  III  Jl  ;l;i  I 
B    3    51fl    33T 


A 


<. 


,  y*- 


^i^VT.  OP  ECONOMI 


Jif  ECONOMICS 


k/ 


The    Case   Against    State   Insurance 


By 

WILLIAM   H.  HOTCHKISS 

'I 

Formerly    Superintendent   of    Insurance 
of  the  State  of  New   York 


Together  with  an  Editorial 
^  on 

Workmen's  Compensation 


Reprinted    from   The   Outlook   of   March    I,    1913, 
by   Permission  of  the   Outlook  Company, 
2"S7  Fourth  Ave.,  New  York  City 


Copyright,  1913,  by  the  Outlook  Company. 


Digitized  by  the  Internet  Archive 

in  2008  with  funding  from 

IVIicrosoft  Corporation 


http://www.arcTlf\;.e.ov9f^etaHs/QaseagainststateOOhotcrich 


The   Case   Against   State   Insurance 


SHALL  Insurance  be  written  by  the  State?  In  this  country 
the  question  should  be  its  own  answer.  Under  our  system 
of  forty-eight  commonwealths,  with  their  varying  health, 
fire-prevention,  and  labor  laws,  the  competition  between 
the  States  and  the  trade  inequality  and  general  chaos  that  would 
result  from  forty-eight  different  State  systems  of  life,  fire,  and 
accident  insurance  seem  to  preclude  a  Nation-wide  State  insur- 
ance plan.  Nor  are  we  Americans  yet  convinced  that  the  central 
government  should  either  become  our  insurance  manager  at 
large,  or,  through  an  excise  tax  under  the  "general  welfare" 
clause  of  the  Constitution,  the  universal  insurer  against  all  the 
hazards  of  the  persons  and  the  property  of  all  the  people. 

But,  waiving  this  basic  difficulty,  shall  we  undertake  "State 
insurance"  in  the  States  ?  Not  old  age  pensions,  unemployment 
relief,  and  the  like — these  are  not  State,  but  social,  insurance; 
indeed,  merely  extensions  of  poor  relief,  long  a  public  function. 
But  State  insurance  proper,  in,  say,  the  life,  the  fire,  and  the  acci- 
dent fields,  which  includes,  if  it  is  to  be  insurance  as  sound  as  is 
now  furnished  by  private  corporations,  the  solicitation  of  busi- 
ness, the  making  of  rates,  the  collection  of  premiums,  the  up- 
building and  maintenance  of  reserves,  the  adjustment  of  claims, 
and — not  the  least  important — the  guaranty  of  payments ;  are  all 
these  functions  to  be  performed  by  the  people,  acting  through 
their  State  Governments? 

If  they  are,  we  may,  ere  we  plunge,  well  seek  the  experience 
of  other  peoples  with  State  insurance.    The  summary  which  fol- 

416786 


lows  is,  perhaps,  not  complete,  but  is  a  fair  statement  of  that 
experience. 

This  new  kind  of  indemnity  is  in  operation  in  the  following 
nations  and  States  at  the  present  time : 

State  Life  Insurance. 

New  Zealand,  since  1869,  in  free  competition  with  private 
corporations. 

Italy,  beginning   with   1913;  a  State  monopoly. 

England,  since  1865,  but  limited  to  "industrial  insurance" 
through  the  post-office  system,  and  in  free  competition  with 
private  "industrial"  insurance  corporations. 

Wisconsin,  since  January  1,  1913,  in  free  competition  with 
private  corporations,  but  without  State  guaranty. 

Laws  similar  to  that  of  Wisconsin  are  also  proposed,  this 
year,  -n  California,  Kansas,  Michigan,  Nebraska,  New  Hamp- 
shire, Oregon,  South  Carolina,  and  Washington;  while  the  In- 
surance Commissioner  of  Michigan  is  urging  that  the  State 
undertake  the  "industrial"  life  insurance  business. 

State  Fire  Insurance. 

New  Zealand,  since  1903,  in  free  competition  with  private 
corporations. 

Italy  is  also  reported  as  considering  the  adoption  of  a  State 
fire   insurance   monopoly. 

State  Accident,  Particularly  Work  Accident,  Insurance. 

New  Zealand,  since  1901,  in  free  competition  with  private 
corporations. 

Norway,  compulsory  and  exclusive  as  to  work  accidents, 
with  State  guaranty, 

Washington,    compulsory    and    exclusive    as    to    work    acci- 
—  4  — 


dents  in  hazardous   employments,  but   without  reserves   against 
future  pension  payments  or  State  guaranty. 

Ohio,  practically  compulsory  as  to  work  accidents,  but  in 
free  competition  with  private  companies;  also  without  reserves 
or  State  guaranty. 

Italy,  with  a  State  insurance  fund  for  work  accidents  as 
only  one  of  several  options  open  to  the  employer;  this  plan  thus 
permitting  free  competition,  with  private  companies. 

Michigan,  with  options  similar  to  those  of  the  Italian  law. 

Sweden,  Finland,  Belgium,  and  the  Netherlands,  with  dif- 
fering options  as  to  work  accidents,  usually  permitting  private 
companies  to  compete  with  the  State  office. 

In  spite  of  this  long  catalogue  of  governmental  experiments, 
it  is  thought  to  be  a  fair  statement  that,  excluding  the  social  and 
the  near-social  insurance  plans,  much  less  than  one  per  cent  of\ 
the  outstanding  insurance  in  the  civilized  world — whether  ms2S-  - 
ured  by  policies  or  by  dollars  of  insurance — is  written  by  Gov- 
ernment, either  as  manager  or  insurer. 

There^  are  also  twilight  zones  between  the  State  form  and 
social  insurance,  on  the  one  hand,  and  these  two  and  rnutual 
insurance  under  State  guaranty,  on  the  other.  Thus,  the  mucH- 
praTsed  and  generally  successful  German  system  of  old  age,  sick- 
ness, and  accident  relief  is  mutual.  State,  and  social  insurance 
rolled  into  one,  though  essentially  it  is  insurance  by  mutual 
associations  of  employers  and  employees.  It  is  not  State  insur- 
ance as  that  term  is  understood  by  us.  Again,  England  has  for 
some  years  had  an  old  age  pension  plan,  supported  solely  by  the 
British  treasury — social  insurance — and,  under  the  leadership  of 
Lloyd  George,  has  recently  embarked  upon  sickness  insurance — 
compulsory  on  all  who  earn  less  than  $800  a  year— and  unem- 
ployment insurance,  applicable  to  the  engineering  and  building 
trades;  both  being  forms  of  social  insurance,  and — the  Govern- 
ment being  the  manager  as  well  as  the  guarantor — State  insurance 


as  well.  The  Massachusetts  Workmen's  Compensation  Law, 
with  its  State-regulated  mutual  employers'  association  in  free 
competition  with  the  various  private  corporations,  is  also  in  this 
twilight  zone ;  as  is  the  Massachusetts  plan  for  writing  life  insur- 
ance through  savings  banks. 
-  "  That  insurance  is  a  public  service  of  necessity  will  be 
admitted.  But  that,  save  as  a  relief  against  poverty,  and,  it  is 
claimed,  the  human  scrap-heap  of  modern  industry,  it  falls  within 
the  sphere  of  government  proper  is  as  yet  far  from  general  recog- 
nition. The  present  demand  for  State  insurance  in  this  country 
rests,  rather,  not  on  economic  theory,  but  on  two  very  patent 

/  facts :  the  private  insurance  companies  are  unpopular ;  their  rates 

1   are  believed  to  be  too  high. 

As  to  the  first,  they  are  corporations — which,  in  the  public 
mind,  is  enough.  But,  more,  some  insurance  corporations  have 
been  brought  to  book  for  financial  transactions  publicly  con- 
demned ;  I'jdiile  some  others,  in  their  callow  years,  were,  speaking 
niiidiy,  ratiier  exacting  in  settling  claims  ;  and  still  others  are  novo 
being  grilled  as  accessory  to  the  "arson  trust."  Which  being- 
noted,  the  plain  fact  is  that — with  exceptions  Avhich  prove  the 
rule  aside — the  private  insurance  companies  of  the  country  are 
well  managed,  honest  in  relations  with  policy-holders  and  the 
public,  and  absolutely  dependable  in  a  financial  sense.  I  speak 
from  the  view-point  of  State  supervision  when  I  say  that  the 
people  of  OUT  State  would  gain  mighty  little  in  dependability  of 
insurance  if  the  State  plan  should  supersede  the  private  plan  : 
they  would  be  pretty  sure  to  lose  much  in  efficiency  and  square 
dealing.  QQ^Y^eniment  with  us  is  -i^ti^^  ]>n1itira1  not  social. 
•  But  the  rates!     Yes,  thevcosp generally  speaknig  is  tuo  high. 

;  The  premiums  we  pay  go  for  (1)  losses  and  reserves,  (2)  expense, 
and  (3)  profits.  If  the  State  is  to  do  this  business,  no  saving 
can  be  made  on  losses  and  reserves ;  rather  the  reverse.  Perhaps, 
nay  probably,'  the  State  could  save  on  "expense"  ;  and,  the  gov- 
ernment being  the  stockholder,  nothing  would  be  needed  fof 
"profits."    The  prospect  is,  therefore,  tempting  where,  in  life  in- 


surance.  the  jsx£ense.,OF- loading,  isj  say,  10  per  cent  on  non- 
participating  insurance  and  30  per  cent  on  participating  (a  fair 
part  of  the  latter,  however,  coming  back  in  "dividends")  ;  in  fire 
insurance,  say,  40  per  cent,  and  in  accident— particularly  work 
accident — from  35  per  cent  to  50  per  cent. 

But  how  have  the  "State  insurance"  nations  and  States  fared 
in  seeking  to  eliminate  the  "expense"  of  insurance?  Much  the 
larger  part  of  the  expense  factor  goes  in  commissions  to  solicit- 
ing and  collecting  agents  Yet  no  State  insurance,  plan  has  suc- 
ceeded without  having  ^(gents)  Mr.  Gladstone  tried  it  in  his 
postal  industrial  insurance  plan  of  1865,  but  the  private 
companies  forged  ahead  in  spite  of  the  prestige  of  the  Govern- 
ment's guarant}-,  and  the  State's  industrial  life  insurance  became 
negligible.  Wisconsin  has  made  the  same  error ;  so  few  applica- 
tions for  insurance  have  come  in  that  the  State  office  has  not  yet 
started  to  issue  policies.  In  New  Zealand  where  thej-e  is  free  / 
competition  between  the  Government  and  the  companies  in  all 
the  fields,  the  Government  ha=^  agents  on  commission  as  well 
as  the  companies.  Italy  starts  oft'  her  life  insurance  monopoly 
with  agents  on  commission,  and  compels  new  business,  not  by 
prizes  and  rewards  to  good  producing  agents,  but  by  fining  such 
agents  as  fail  to  produce  each  .year  new  business  up  to  the  statu- 
tory limits.  The  only  real  remedy  for  the  middleman  cost  is 
compulsory  insurance,  and,  save  for  insurance  against  work  acci- 
dents in  hazardous  trades,  we  are  hardly  ready  for  that. 

But,  further,  as  to  the  cost.  New  Zealand  and  Norway — 
the  former  in  competition  and  the  latter  in  monopolistic-=-have  re- 
duced the  cost.  But  Norway  did  this  at  first  at  the  expense  of  a 
heavy  dej^cit,  which  was  made  up  out  of  the  national  revenue. 
New  Z^land  began  its  fire  insurance  business  by  cutting  rates, 
with  the  result  that  both  the  Government  and  the  competing 
private  companies  probably  wrote  policies  at  a  loss.  Italy  is 
wiser,  and,  in  spite  of  her  monopoly,  has  fixed  the  State  life  in- 
surance rates  at  about  a  slight  reduction  from  those  previously 
charged  by  the  private  companies.     Wisconsin  oft"ers  insurance 

—  7  — 


well  uuder  the  private  rates,  but  then  Wisconsin  sells  her  insur- 
ance "over  the  counter"  only,  without  agents,  and,  though  thus 
saving,  makes  success  through  volume  impossible.  The  States 
of  Washington  and  Ohio,  operating  also  without  agents,  further 
cut  the  cost  of  dispensing  with  that  mere  nothing,  to  them,  re- 
serves ;  thus,  to  an  extent,  charging  the  future  with  the  compen- 
sation for  work  accidents  of  the  present.  In  Norway  the  reduced 
cost  has  been  accomplished  at  the  expense  of  an  unjust  distribu- 
tion of  the  economic  waste  from  work  accidents,  all  employers 
paying  into  the  State  fund  at  a  flat  rate  per  trade,  irrespective  of 
the  safety  appliances  or  inspections  availed  of  b}'  individual 
shops.  But  the  notable  fact  is  that  in  Socialistic  New  Zealand, 
where  State  life  insurance  has  been  the  rule  for  more  than  forty 
years,  where  the  State  uses  all  the  business-getting  methods  of 
the  private  companies,  and  where  the  State  office  enjoys  a 
monopoly  in  the  insurance  of  all  civil  servants,  the  private  com- 
panies are  slowly  forging  ahead  in  the  percentage  of  insurance 
V  ritten,  and,  through  the  "selection"  due  to  their  larger  number  i 
of  new  policies,  are  gradually  overcoming  the  lead  of  the  State  k 
as  to  cost.  State  insurance  thus  far,  w^here  social  insurance  is  ! 
not  essential  to  the  general  welfare,  is  but  another  teaching  of 
the  old  lesson  that  government  usually  does  its  business  less  O 
cheaply    than    do    that    government's    citizens    and    corporate  x 

creatures. 

It  may  be,  therefore,  granted  that  there  would  be  a  saving 
in  premium  cost — for  a  time  at  least — if  the  State  should  take 
over  this  business  of  insurance ;  perhaps  if,  through  a  State 
office,  it  became  but  the  manager  at  large.  But  at  what  a  cost 
would  this  saving  be  made !  Insurance  is  not  bread  or  book, 
but  a  highly  specialized  service,  founded  on  technical  deductions 
from  various  probabilities.  Life  insurance  deals  with  one  cer- 
tainty— death — and  its  law  of  average  is,  therefore,  sure ;  that, 
however  is  but  the  beginning  of  its  problems.  Fire  insurance 
has  been  called  a  great  gamble ;  the  San  Francisco  conflagration 
shows  why.     The  Triangle  fire  indicates  the  catastrophe  risk  of 


workmen's  compensation.  With  such  hazards  government 
should  have  naught  to  do — save  to  supervise  strictly  the  com- 
panies which  insure  against  thenni 

Are  we  ready,  through  government,  to  take  over  the  intricate 
problems  involved  in  the  making  of  rates  in  all  the  insurance 
fields?  Shall  we  transfer  to  ordinary  political  servants  the  deli- 
cate function  of  adjusting  losses  where  the  claims  are  against, 
not  a  private  company,  but  the  people — government  itself? 

Will  works  for  the  prevention  of  sickness,  fires,  and  acci- 
dents be  as  well  done  through  a  political  civil  service  as  by  the 
employees  of  a  private  company,  whose  tenure  depends,  not 
on  election  day  results,  but  on  real  service? 

Will  social  progress  in  the  betterment  of  industrial  condi- 
tions be  as  likely  if  the  Socialistic  leveler  is  substituted  for  indi- 
vidual initiative,  and  the  money  incentive  expressed  in  safety 
appliances  and  fire-protected  shops  is  taken  away? 

Have  we  not  a  plenty  of  State  offices  and  State  servants, 
already,  and  shall  we  double  their  number  by  the  State's  taking 
over  insurance — managers,  experts,  agents,  and  all? 

Are^ur  State  financial  systems  so  sound  that  we  can  afford 
to  put  upon  them  the  strain  of  insurance  against  all  the  hazards, 
both  human  and  property,  of  all  our  people? 

I  think  not. 

Yes ;  State  insurance  would  do  if  it  were  monopolistic  and 
compulsory,  and,  again,  if  the  State  were  prepared  to  pay  prop- 
erly for  the  technical  skill  now  employed,  and,  still  again,  if — 
and  a  mighty  "if"  this — if  it  could  be  admini^ered  through  a 
civil  service  ideally  pejiect.  But  we  Americans  do  not  yet  cot- 
ton to  bureaucratic  compulsion,  and  for  some  years  yet  the  words 
"jobs"  and  "influence"  and  "graft"  will  continue  to  have  a  sinis- 
ter meaning. 

In  short,  should  insurance  as  a  system,  now  closely  super- 
vised by  the  State,  be  taken  away  from  present  agencies  of 
great  skill — the  insurance  companies  of  to-day — and  be  remitted 
to  our  American  system  o£  politics,  partisanship,  and  pull? 


Decidedly  not.  If  premium  cost  be  the  trouble,  it  can  be 
remedied  more  easily  and  without  shock.  The  growing  number 
of  mutual  companies  in  all  the  insurance  fields  is  significant. 
They,  through  so-called  dividends  and  methods  of  getting  busi- 
ness which  make  agents  less  numerous  and  insistent,  are  per- 
haps pointing  the  way.  But  if  insurance  is  a  public  service  of 
necessity  that  can  certainly  be  done  more  eflectively  by  private 
corporations  than  by  the  State,  is  not  the  way  to  check  undue 
expense  to  limit  it  by  law?  This  could  easily  be  done.  Cer- 
tain adjustments  to  new  conditions  would,  of  course,  be  neces- 
sary. There  would  follow  a  great  reduction  in  the  number  of 
insurance  agents ;  stockholders'  profits  might  be  no  higher  than 
the  interest  earned  on  the  capital  invested ;  salaries  might  shrink. 
But  insurance  could  then  be  had  at  a  cost  equivalent  to  the  value 
of  the  service  rendered,  and  our  now  bulging  governments  be 
saved  from  a  Socialistic  experiment  as  unnecessary  as  it  is 
dangerous. 


-10- 


The   Outlook's   Editorial   Opinion 


w 


HEN  a  machine  is  injured  in  the  course  of  its  use,  the 
owner  of  the  machine  bears  the  cost  of  the  injury  and 
charges  it  to  the  expense  of  production,  for  which  he 
receives  payment  as  he  sells  his  goods.  When,  how- 
ever, a  workman  is  injured  in  the  course  of  his  employment, 
the  cost  of  the  injury  conies  upon  him,  who  can  ill  afford  to 
bear  it;  and  if  his  injury  is  serious,  resulting  in  long  incapacity 
for  work,  or  in  death,  his  family  is  drafted  into  that  great  army 
of  dependents  that  is  a  reproach  to  our  civilization. 

There  is  no  reason  that  common  sense  can  accept  why  the 
cost  in  human  efficiency  and  human  life  of  the  production  of  the 
things  that  people  need  should  not  be  charged  to  the  account 
of  that  production,  just  as  is  charged  the  cost  in  injury  to 
machinery. 

It  is  this  consideration  that  has  led  to  the  passage  of  work- 
men's compensation  laws^  Among  the  States  to  adopt  such  a 
law  was  the  greatest  industrial  State  in  the  Union,  New  York  f 
but  the  highest  court  in  that  State  declared  that  the 
])eople  had  no  power  to  pass  such  a  law;  the  judges 
said  it  was  a  good  law,  a  greatly  needed  law,  but 
that  it  was  unconstitutional,  because  the  employers  were  re- 
quired to  charge  to  their  expense  account  injuries  to  the  work- 
men. Now  New  York  is  trying  to  see  if  it  cannot  have  some 
kind  of  workmen's  compensation  law  that  will  he  constitutional. 

There  are  two  ways  by  which  the  State  can  conceival^ly 
do  this. 

One  way  is  by  the  slow  process  of  changing  the  Constitu- 

—  11  — 


tion  so  that  the  Legislature  will  be  empowered  to  pass  a  com- 
pulsory compensation  act. 

The  other  way  is  to  frame  a  measure  in  such  a  form  that  the 
employer  will  not  be  compelled  by  the  State  to  compensate 
his  employees,  but  will  find  it  very  disadvantageous  to  himself 
if  he  does  not  do  so  but  elects  to  take  his  chances  in  the  courts, 
because  he  will  find  himself  stripped  of  his  common  law  defenses. 

There  are  several  States  which  have  chosen  the  second  of 
these  alternatives;  and  it  is  the  second  of  these  alternatives 
which  is  under  serious  consideration  in  the  New  York  Legisla- 
ture at  present.  At  the  same  time  there  is  also  pending  in  the 
Legislature  a  resolution  to  amend  the  Constitution  so  that  the 
first  alternative  may  be  adopted. 

There  is  practically  no  serious  opposition  to  the  proposal 
that  some  kind  of  workmen's  compensation  law  be  passed  in 
New  York;  but  there  is  a  warm  dispute  as  to  what  form  that 
law  should  take. 

It  is  evident  that  if  workmen  are  to  be  compensated  for 
injury  there  must  be  a  fund  provided  out  of  which  such  com- 
pensation can  be  paid.  There  are  four  possible  ways  for  provid- 
ing such  a  fund.  First,  each  employer  may  reserve  a  portion  of 
his  income  out  of  which  to  pay  his  own  employees.  This  of 
course  is  possible  wdien  the  employer  is  a  great  corporation ;  but 
it  is  practically  out  of  the  question  with  the  small  employer, 
who  would  find  it  impos.sible  to  meet"^the  cost  of  a  serious  dis- 
aster suddenly  occurring.  Second,  a  number  of  employers  may 
join  in  establishing  a  common  compensation  fund,  thus  carrying 
on  for  this  particular  purpose  a  process  of  mutual  insurance. 
Third,  the  employers  who  choose  to  act  in  accordance  with  a 
compensation  laAV  may  be  required  to  take  out  insurance  in  pri- 
vate liability  companies.  There  is  a  great  objection  to  this, 
especially  on  the  part  of  organized  workmen.  The  reasons  for 
this  objection  are  that  these  liability  companies  have  no  interest 
whatever  in  the  relation  between  the  employer  and  the  em- 
ployees, and  are  therefore  likely  to  disregard  all  the  human  ele- 

—  12  — 


ment  that  the  employer  would  take  into  consideration ;  that  some 
of  these  liability  companies  have,  at  least  in  the  past,  been  guilty, 
like  some  other  corporations,  of  sharp  practices  in  order  to  save 
payment  of  the  insurance ;  and  that  the  cost  of  the  agents  neces- 
sary for  the  securing  of  business  adds  unnecessarily  to  the  cost 
of  the  insurance,  and  therefore  subtracts  from  the  amount  that 
the  workman  otherwise  might  receive.  Fourth,  the  fund  out 
of  which  compensation  may  be  paid  may  be  administered  by  the 
State,  each  employer — and  possibly  each  employee — contributing 
his  quota  to  the  fund,  the  disbursements  being  made  by  a  de- 
partment of  the  State  government.  The  objections  to  this 
method  are  suggested  in  the  course  of  Mr.  Hotchkiss's  article 
printed  in  this  issue.  Those  objections  are  not  so  serious  to  an 
insurance  fund  to  which  employers  are  compelled  to  contribute 
as  they  are  to  the  general  practice  of  State  insurance  against 
fire,  ordinary  accidents,  and  death ;  but  they  are  very  forcibly 
expressed  by  certain  employers  and  by  representatives  of  lia- 
bility companies. 

There  have  been  two  important  bills  before  the  New  York 
Legislature.  One  adopts  the  liability  company  plan,  the  other 
adopts  the  State  insurance  plan.  In  favor  of  the  latter  are  the 
labor  unions,  while  against  it  are  arrayed  the  majority  of  big 
employers  and  the  casualty  companies  who  are  v^illing  to  accept 
the  other  bill  as  an  alternative.  It  is  now  proposed  that  the  two 
features  be  combined,  with  possibly  the  other  two  features  also, 
so  that  the  employer  may  have  his  choice  of  funds — an  indi- 
vidual fund,  a  mutual  fund,  a  liability  companies'  fund,  or  a  State 
fund — from  which  to  draw. 

We  have  simply  stated  here  in  broadest  outlines  the  situ- 
ation in  New  York,  without  undertaking  to  indicate  what  par- 
ticular method  should  be  followed.  Public  opinion  appears  to  be 
u-xoving  toward  what  we  believe  is  the  wisest  course — the  adop- 
tion of  a  system  which  will  give  the  employer  a  choice  among 
the  various  methods.  It  is  even  conceivable  that  a  bill  might 
be  drafted  establishing  a  compulsory  compensation  system  with 

—  13  — 


these  four  optional  methods  as  to  insurance,  which  would  go 
into  operation  immediately  upon  the  adoption  of  the  Constitu- 
tional amendment  permitting  a  compulsory  compensation  law. 

The  significant  thing  about  this  whole  situation  is  that  the 
discussion  has  changed  from  an  argument  between  those  who 
believed  in  workmen's  compensation  and  those  who  opposed  it, 
to  an  argument  merely  over  method.  Nothing  could  more 
clearly  demonstrate  the  great  advance  that  has  been  made  within 
recent  years  in  the  development  of  a  keener  public  conscience 
and  a  greater  sense  of  public  responsibility  for  all  that  affects 
social  welfare  and  that  impedes  or  promotes  social  justice. 


14 


RETURN 
TO 


CIRCULATION  DEPARTMENT 

202  Main  Library 


FORM  NO. 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CALIFORNIA,  BERKELEY 
DD6,  60m,  12/80        BERKELEY,  CA  94720 


U- 


.^ 


